LUCRĂRILE SEMINARULUI GEOGRAFIC “DIMITRIE CANTEMIR” NR. 33, 2012 LABOUR RESOURCES IMBALANCES IN IAŞI COUNTY Andrei Chirilă1 Abstract. This article tries to define workforce precariousness (regarded as the total of the persons that have no income), to produce a critical and constructive analysis of the concepts related to occupational status and to measure it at the communal scale. The second part of our study applies a multivariate analysis that takes into consideration demographical and workforce indicators, in other to establish the most vulnerable areas in Iaşi County. Keywords: Iași County, occupational status, workforce precariousness, multivariate analysis, vulnerable areas 1. Introduction In order to begin a quantitative analysis of the labour resources imbalances (in the present case in Iaşi County, on the basis of Population and Housing Census of 2002), the conceptual issues related to this question should firstly be clarified. The occupational status represents the relation between a person and his/her economic and social activity, but also the way that person provides the source of existence necessary for a living/the modality of obtaining revenues. (INS, 2010) The calculation method for determining the workforce precariousness degree takes into account precisely this concept (occupational status) and it is represented by the percentage of active and housekeeper population, that does not receive remuneration (money or payment in kind) and that has no income during the reference period (one week prior to the Census), in the total active and housekeeper population. According to the Romanian statistical methodology, these persons are especially unemployed, as the International Labour Organization defines this concept (therefore not necessarily included on the lists of Employment County Offices, but according to the own statements of the censused population), definition that states that an unemployed person should meet three conditions: to lack a job, to be available to become employed in the next 15 days and to actively seek a job. (Iațu, 2006) Also, unpaid family workers are also included in this category, in other words those persons who work in a family economic unit belonging to a member of the household and who do not receive remuneration. Finally, we also considered housekeeper population in this category, because they are carrying out activities in the household, have no income and do not receive any salary or pension. It is observed that the definitions of the last two terms are quite similar; however, the first occupational category is included in economically active population, while the second is not. In this respect, we must interrogate on the accuracy of this classification, since the official definition of economically active persons states very clearly 1 “Al.I.Cuza” University of Iasi, Faculty of Geography and Geology, Department of Geography, Bd.Carol I 20A, 700505, Iasi, Romania, [email protected] 115 that they are 15 years and older and are performing an economic activity, in order to obtain an income (as wages, as payment in kind or as other benefits). In this case, we believe that family workers should not be included in this category because they don't obtain financial or other revenues (most of the time, the head of the household is the only member of the family that obtain them, statistically being defined as worker on his own). Moreover, according to the 17th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, unpaid family workers were included in informal employment, because they have not a contract or other type of formal employment. We can also put into question the non-inclusion of housekeeper population in the category of active population, whereas the latter includes the persons who provide available workforce for the production of goods and services, not being specified a maximum age limit. Thus, the housekeeper population represents a part of the available workforce, as they carry on household activities, fact meaning that they have an economic activity, even without realizing any income. In any case, we decided to select these three occupational categories, precisely because they fail to realize revenues, representing a possible source for the employment sector. In fact, these three categories of population are part of the unseen unemployment and they show the true gravity Romanian society is dealing with, especially in rural areas (in addition to demographic ageing). Unemployment itself may be considered as a form of waste of society's resources, comprising loss of production and income (Adumitrăcesei and Niculescu, 1995); unseen unemployment does not imply only such losses, but also a socio- economic situation at the limit of subsistence. We have not included workers on their own in the formula measuring the degree of workforce precariousness, because in the statistical databases, they are not differentiated between those working in non-agricultural activities and those working in agricultural activities. The ones from the first category carry on activities in their own workshop, in their own commercial unit or they are freelancers (so they have a source of income), while those from the second category obtain a non-wage income (the sale or the exchange of agricultural products and so on). Basically, there are also workers on their own who have worked for the production of goods exclusively for their own consumption (or their household), such as farmers in subsistence farms or as those who are building their own homes, but it is impossible to quantify their proportion in the total population, they also being considered major exponents of the informal sector (Pisică, 2011). The next part of the study, closely related to determining the (quantitative) workforce precariousness degree envisages the calculation at the communal level of Iaşi County of the economic-occupational dependency rate. In this regard, a few specifications are needed: the economic dependency rate itself represents the ratio of the inactive population and the unemployed one, and the economically active population, suggesting the economic effort of the working population, having effects on the expenses with pension and health insurances. (Iațu, 2006).As for the economic-occupational dependency rate, an indicator we've personally constructed, reporting will be done only to the population receiving any remuneration or that has its own source of income (employees, patrons and private entrepreneurs, workers on their own and members of the agricultural companies). In this case, the economic effort which we mentioned before will become one closer to the territorial realities. The last part of the study consists in determining the correlation degree between various demographic and labour resources indicators, degree which is calculated by using the Bravais-Pearson correlation coefficient. It can take values between -1 and + 1 (-1 if the correlation is strongly positive, 0 if there is no correlation between indicators and -1 if it is strongly negative). Also, this part of the study includes a multivariate analysis (Main Components Analysis) of the indicators taken into account, at the communal level of Iaşi 116 County, in order to establish the most vulnerable areas from this point of view. The method of this analysis requires the classification of all spatial units, in respect to the correlation degree of each commune with all the considered indicators. Thus, a wide range of indicators has been used, in order to establish an approach that take into consideration complex territorial realities. This list includes the unemployment rate (ILO definition), the activity and economic activity rates, the percentage of employees, of workers on their own and of unpaid family workers in total of economically active population, the percentage of the population occupied in agriculture, industry, commerce and education/health in the total of economically active population, the employment rate (ratio between the employed population and the working age population), the economic dependency rate, the rate of workforce renewal (the ratio between the population between 15-24 years and the population between 55-64 years), the education level of the population being 10 years and older (relative values – superior, post-secondary, secondary, professional, primary and with no studies) and, finally, the workforce precariousness degree. 2. Results and discussions 2.1. Workforce precariousness in Iaşi County The workforce precariousness degree varies between 19.56% in the case of Iaşi Municipality and 73,55% in the case of Schitu-Duca commune (figure 1), the county average being of 49,45%, fact that demonstrates that almost half of the total active and housekeeper persons (that would represent the potential labour resources) does not benefit from any income or remuneration. This is a situation of great concern, especially for the rural localities, characterized, in general, by economic activities of subsistence farming. The most vulnerable areas from this point of view are the southern (Ipatele, Dobrovăţ Dagâţa, Dolheşti and Costuleni) and the central-western ones (Cristeşti, Todireşti, Lungani, Oţeleni, Valea Seacă River or Mădârjac), with a share of unpaid family workers in total of the economically active population that reaches values of 60-65%. These vulnerable areas may also be extended in the north-central part of the county (the communes of Belcețti, Focuri, Gropniţa, Şipote, Bivolari or Plugari). The lower values of the workforce